<<As I've said above, I don't think this is ellipsis--and I don't think
it's
a figure of speech either. There is no hINA or hOPWS in the Greek
introducing the second verb and that second verb is an indicative,
KRATEITE, not a subjunctive, KRATHTE, such as would be required in a
purpose clause. I think the translator's inference of a deliberate intent
to maintain human tradition as underlying the abandonment of the divine
commandment is a logical inference rather than a grammatical insight.

I hope that helps rather than confuses matters for you. There may well be
alternative views here, but I'm not aware of any alternative manuscript
reading that would justify reading a purpose clause here.>>

Not only am I a 'little greek', sometimes I am a 'little slow', so please
allow me to repeat this in my own words to be sure I am not confused. You
are saying that there is no grammatical reason to justify a purpose clause
here, but it may by inference be understood to be one based on overall
context. Is that correct?